Chris Cuomo asks the tough questions to newsmakers in Washington and around the world. Thats something that i think is very foreign. I guarantee it, chris, even though he koops, hes smart enough, Michael Cohen, not to say he was present at any meeting in which the president said i have an arrangement with the russians. Witnesses dont do that. Why not . If the question of collusion is on a scale one to ten, hell move it up to seven. Hell say, well, the president says he has a good arrangement with the russians but hell never say that the president said that he had a Collusive Arrangement with the russians. But thats t not the standard. What if he were present for a meeting where somebody gave the president information about something the that was going to happen that was a 23u7ks of the hacking and the president therefore knew about it at a time when he said he did not know about it . What if the president that would be punishable. Meetings that he said he doesnt know about and Michael
Dispute. Now turning attention to the ron johnson letter if i may. Yes. On august 31st, Senator Johnson is getting ready to travel to ukraine on September 5th with senator with murphy. And he wanted johnson wanted the aid released so he calls the president and sought permission to be the bearer of good news. Right. The president said im not ready to lift the aid. They had this Senator Johnson, he writes a tenpage letter, very detailed, and he gives some remarkable detail and i would like to read it. Its on page 6. I this is Senator Johnson speaking, he said i asked him whether there was some kind of
arran arrangement where ukraine would take some action and the hold would be lifted. Without hesitation, Senator Johnson says, President Trump immediately denied such an arrangement existed and he started cursing. He said, no way. President trump said no way. I would never do that. Who told you that . And Senator Johnson goes on to say that President Trumps reactionnt here was adamant, vehe
is saying the arraignment for defendants the week of september 5th and a trial on march 4th, they are concerned jeffrey clark is concerned about the political nature of this case and the steps taken by the state thus far. do you i mean how much credence do you think the judge is going to give to codefendants who are calling this all politics? i guess i should say how likely do you think it is d.a. willis is going to get anything within the ballpark of march 24 as far as a trial? well, two things. first of all, d.a. willis has said both the night she returned the indictment and throughout the course of her career that she makes her decisions based on it facts, the evidence she can present at trial and the law. she does not make decisions based on partisan politics, and so i find it interesting that those that may view this case through a political lens are transferring that lens to her when she has made it clear that that is not her framing. with respect to the timing, we
in this who is also investigating trump s role- trump s role. in some cases as spectacular trump s role. in some cases as spectacular as trump s role. in some cases as spectacular as it trump s role. in some cases as spectacular as it would - trump s role. in some cases as spectacular as it would be - trump s role. in some cases as spectacular as it would be for l spectacular as it would be for congress spectacular as it would be for congress to make these criminal referrals, congress to make these criminal referrals, it is almost duplicate it because referrals, it is almost duplicate it because the justice department is already because the justice department is already looking at donald trump s role in already looking at donald trump s role in and already looking at donald trump s role in and around january six so certainly role in and around january six so certainly congress sending this information to the justice department could add some political pressure. de
and obstruct the investigations of trump crimes. the public needs to know all this. that s what we re going to exist. maybe even watching too many episodes because they ve been rewatching house of cards. big scandal. my imagination is very big when it comes to these things. when i see the worried, freeze going out of friends, i go down some very dark, very dark and deep holes here in terms of what that offense could look like how far will you guys go to but up against a row but these investigations. is it rebutting the stuff that comes out of these investigations? or is it focusing in on the people who are leading them and running them? it s both. but this is an offensive posture that we re taking here. we re calling it facts first. we all know, we are going to cross every t and dot every i and always summer faxon line. we know that miss this environment, facts although always triumphing. to be counter narratives.